Are Muslims a homosexual's worst enemy? - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14821121
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure. None if this contradicts what I said. Your claim that AIDS is a valid reason for homophobia is still not supported. None of this historical stuff supports it either.

Also, please present evidence that sodomy gives you anal pustules. Thanks.


You are blathering nonsense now.

Look it is a fact that homosexuality has health risk factors associated with it. See CDC advice to homosexuals as to how to mitigate those risks. For that matter so does drinking alcohol or snorting coke. Those are the facts but from the facts you can take two different policy directions:

The Abrahamic direction is to say "if no one does it there is no risk so discipline people not to do it".

The pagan direction is to say, "nothing that is fun is without risk and you aren't going to live forever anyway so go for it". AKA "wine, women and song", "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, "live fast, die young". etc.

I lean towards the pagan direction as I guess you do to since you are apparently pro-gay.

I'd put ZN somewhere in the middle as he doesn't seem interested in disciplining this behaviour though does not like it.

The majority of muslims are riding hard on the Abrahamic side, even the point to using deliberately lethal methods of discipline.
#14821125
SolarCross wrote:You are blathering nonsense now.


Nope.

Look it is a fact that homosexuality has health risk factors associated with it. See CDC advice to homosexuals as to how to mitigate those risks. For that matter so does drinking alcohol or snorting coke.


Are anal pustules mentioned?

Does it support your claim that AIDS is a valid reason for homophobia?

Those are the facts but from the facts you can take two different policy directions:

The Abrahamic direction is to say "if no one does it there is no risk so discipline people not to do it".

The pagan direction is to say, "nothing that is fun is without risk and you aren't going to live forever anyway so go for it". AKA "wine, women and song", "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, "live fast, die young". etc.

I lean towards the pagan direction as I guess you do to since you are apparently pro-gay.

I'd put ZN somewhere in the middle as he doesn't seem interested in disciplining this behaviour though does not like it.


I do not care about your weird Abrahamic/pagan dichotomy. Nor do I consider it relevant.

The majority of muslims are riding hard on the Abrahamic side, even the point to using deliberately lethal methods of discipline.


When white guys like you kill homosexuals (which still happens in the west), it is not discussed. When Muslims do it, everyone all of a sudden cars about gay rights.

Also, the awful Muslims who execute gays are, at least, not pretending that they do not kill homosexuals, while white conservatives claim they no longer do, despite the fact that such killings continue.
#14821126
@SolarCross

And so are Christians and Jews. Of course then you're going to say that Muslims kill them even though it's not Muslims but the governments of those countries and then you'll overlook Iran, Egypt, Maghreb, and Lebanon. Countries in which their Muslim populations disagree with their governments and through their own way, fight their governments.

In your stupid fucking beliefs, every single DA MUSLIMS wants to kill homosexuals because your beliefs can't work in any other way.
#14821136
Oxymandias wrote:@Zionist Nationalist

The Muslim Brotherhood was elected because Sedentary Egyptians forgot that they had a large uneducated countrysided population.


37.5% voted for the Muslim Brotherhood and 27.8% for the Salafists (Al-Nour and co.). Combined that's 2/3 of the votes.
#14821138
I think Islam is the most homosexual religion of the them all, the whole thing about forcing the women into binbags and totally restricting the mixing of the two sexes pretty much confirms it.
#14821230
SolarCross wrote: An important milestone for the rights of homosexuals was the decriminalisation of sodomy that has occurred throughout the west in the last century. For example it was decriminalised in 1967 for England and Wales and in 1980 for Scotland.

I think if you were to rank the enemies of homosexuality, they would be:

1. Homosexuals: Homosexuals generally don't procreate, so their gene pool--other than any epigenetics of their siblings--don't pass on. So they are a genetically doomed group. As for behavior, their risky lifestyles are the worst enemy they have. It kills far more of them than any repressor, oppressor or otherwise.

2. Liberals: Liberals decriminalized sodomy. The timeline you mention is interesting, because it coincides rather perfectly with the explosion in sexually transmitted diseases. Over 35M people have died from HIV/AIDS alone in that time period. That's 5 times as many people as Hitler is credited with killing in his Final Solution. Although, assuming Hitler started his major killing in 1943, he's still worse than liberals on a rate-of-killing basis. However, nobody ever stops liberals from killing.

3. Islam: Islam is both a friend and an enemy. By forcing homosexuality into the closet, Muslim homosexuals haven't faced the death rate of homosexuals in the West. However, some have faced cruel punishments and death at the hands of Islam.

SolarCross wrote:To a great extent democracy is a numbers game yet homosexuals are not a huge voting block and for various reasons unlikely to get larger. Their few % could easily be overwhelmed by the fast increasing % of muslims, particularly given their birth rates and success in converting the prison populations of secular societies.

They will always be an outlier. That's why I say they are their own worst enemy on a long-term basis. On a near-term basis, liberals are their worst enemies, because liberals encourage hedonism that is the destruction of the homosexual's life.

noir wrote:In the 60's and the 70's Amsterdam was a focal point for gay culture. Today many gays there are complaing about Muslim harassment.

Again, this is further evidence that, other than homosexuals themselves, liberals are a homosexual's worst enemy. Liberals are the worst enemy many groups have.

SolarCross wrote:Do you not feel solidarity with European homosexuals?

I'm opposed to the modern variants of egalitarianism, so I can't say I feel solidarity with all people everywhere. I think liberals have rendered "equal" into something utterly meaningless.

mikema63 wrote:One would be signs of political repression of gays (as in Russia).

Yes, but repression of homosexuality has a protective effect in extending the lifespan of homosexuals.

Hong Wu wrote:The reasoning that white conservatives are supposedly a greater threat doesn't really support the conclusion that it's good for the long term prospects of some of these groups to bring in people to the right of the Christians, who have demonstrated less flexibility in these areas.

White conservatives reject the notion of extolling hedonism as a virtue, which seems to be a cornerstone of liberal thought these days.

The Sabbaticus wrote:Only days ago Tommy Robinson co-organized an 'Against Hate March' together with Sikhs, ex-muslims and gay rights groups opposed to sharia through Manchester.

The MSM didn't like it.

And they propagate the liberal ethos...

ingliz wrote:Most studies on hate crime offending have found that perpetrators generally tend to be young white men (Chakraborti et al., 2014, p. 56; Iganski and Smith 2011; Smithson et al., 2011; Williams and Tregidga, 2013, p. 46), supporting the assertion that hate crimes are most frequently committed by those from the majority groups.

Self-harm is a far greater problem for homosexuals than hate crimes as far as I can tell. Like problems in the black community, the LGBT community blames the society at large. Since there are far fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals, developing identity-based communities and finding mates is extraordinarily difficult for them, leading to alienation and depression that is a natural consequence of their nature. It's not like the effect of being the runt of the litter in other species.

SolarCross wrote:Why are you talking about race btw? Check the OP, this is about muslim attitudes towards homosexuals. Race is irrelevant.

It's marginally relevant in that LGBT groups are culturally marxist. That is to say, if they don't indentify as marxist, their group basically is politically powerless. Blacks have adopted a similar stance identity-wise. As I'm pointing out, if you want to get into lethality, homosexuals are their own worst enemies. The protective effects of repression were removed by liberals and they manufactured the notion that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals and should find a partner and get married--the failure to understand that marriage means heterosexual procreation notwithstanding.

ThirdTerm wrote:If you go to the most conservative areas of the Muslim world such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, you could get shot for being gay.

Except on "gay Thursday" as American veterans of Afghanistan will tell you. It seems a Thursday afternoon/evening circle jerk is a-okay, but any other day and you'd be hung.

minivanburen wrote:Multiculturalism does not actively radicalize Muslims who immigrate to Europe.

No. However, it does tolerate radicalization. It's not lawful for a white American conservative like Michael Savage to enter the UK, but it is fine for radical imams to do so. How do you think you would fare in a sharia court?

Rugoz wrote:- America gets to handpick its Muslims, mostly the educated elites, while Europe gets the "rabble".

Until Obama... He really had a thing for putting Muslim refugees into Middle America.

Oxymandias wrote:2. I hope you're joking. There's no proof that America gets richer Muslims than Europe and there's is proof that refugees do go to America from conflict zones. If they didn't, talks about refugees in America wouldn't even be a thing.

Pakistan has a lot of programmers. One time at work, I almost tripped over a Muslim in the break room, where he was bent over praying. I almost didn't see him. It's crazy stuff.

Atlantis wrote:Even though it is not officially sanctioned, everybody in Muslim countries knows that it takes place. Without the means of pre-marital sex and with marriage requiring sufficient economic means, many young males in the MENA have no other way of experiencing sexuality. Thus, to many it is more a means of convenience than an innate sexual orientation.

Right. It's gay Thursday or whatever. However, if you're married, have the means to be married, etc., and it's not Thursday, you're in heap big trouble I assume.

Pants-of-dog wrote:In the southern US, conservative bigots would be the biggest threat.

That's a liberal meme. It's more likely blacks. Blacks tend to be more violent and as a group they are anti-gay. If I were black, I could write a virulently anti-gay song, and that would be perfectly acceptable in the United States. If I did that as the white man that I am, I'd face ostracism.

Media ignore epidemic of black on gay violence and murder.

Political Interest wrote:In the 1950s they were accusing homosexuals of being susceptible to communism and potential fifth columnists.

Uh... Bradley Manning anyone? ... :roll: That was absolutely true then as now. If you don't and can't identify with the majority of the people in your country, betraying them is easy.

Political Interest wrote:Now they are trying to use homoesxuals as allies against the world of Islam.

Yes. Obama was flying the fag flag over US embassies in the Middle East. He taunted Russia that way too. I think as a foreign policy, it is a bridge too far.

skinster wrote:Your fear of gay men is sad. I heard it's common for homophobes to be homosexuals-in-denial. That is also sad, because it's okay to be gay, ZN. Nature is your friend.

This is reverse psychology. If true, it verifies my point: homosexuals are their own worst enemies. Am I to suppose crackers are blacks-in-denial?

Decky wrote:It means nothing, Oscar Wilde was married with kids.

Mild repression is good for the gene pool.

SolarCross wrote:It is fairly probable that the authors of the Torah and similar works were censuring sodomy because of its perceived public health risk, they wouldn't know about viruses and such but they could draw lines between dots where those who liked to get their bottom poked ended up with anal pustules later. The same could also be said of their injuctions against promiscuity, drinking alcohol, eating pork etc.

The liberals reject the likes of Richard Dawkins when it explains traditional homophobia, because the marxist narrative is more important than science to them.

SolarCross wrote:In black Somalia being homo is a death sentence, in white Netherlands it's practically a national past time.

In black America, it's often a death sentence too. Only, as I pointed out in the link above, black violence against homosexuals then becomes "conservative Christians." There is always an attempt to mislead.

SolarCross wrote:The pagan direction is to say, "nothing that is fun is without risk and you aren't going to live forever anyway so go for it". AKA "wine, women and song", "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, "live fast, die young". etc.

I'm not even sure that's fair to pagans. It's certainly fair to say about hedonists, and that is the core ideology of the modern liberal.

Decky wrote:I think Islam is the most homosexual religion of the them all, the whole thing about forcing the women into binbags and totally restricting the mixing of the two sexes pretty much confirms it.

That is a point of irony. Well stated.

However, notice that skinster runs to reverse psychology too. LGBTQ people seem to remain silent on people with sadistic and masochistic sexual tendencies. I find their embrace of everything but S&M a bit ironic too.
#14821232
@blackjack21

Since your post is too big I'm just responding to my portion of it.

I don't see how the number of Pakistan is of any indication that America gets richer Muslim immigrants nor that refugees don't come from conflict zones.

Honestly the homosexual thing and whether or not it's good or bad or something or whatever isn't really relevant to me. Neither is whether or not Muslims are homosexuality's biggest enemy which I have already said I think depends on what Muslims are referring to. What matters to me is the migration discussion because of it's implications.
#14821277
Oxymandias wrote:I don't see how the number of Pakistan is of any indication that America gets richer Muslim immigrants nor that refugees don't come from conflict zones.

One reason there are Muslims in the United States is that they are brought in on H1B visas from Pakistan to work in the IT industry. The "cream of the crop" implication is that upper income people will not be violent. However, we don't have a strong footing there. Mohammed Atta was trained as an architect. He was no dummy. Osama bin Laden was a demi-billionaire. He had lots of money, but yet was radicalized anyway.

Others are brought in as refugees. That's a different story. If you recall, Omar Mateen's father was a refugee. Omar was a US born Muslim. His father sympathized with the Taliban, and with Hillary Clinton. I thought that was one of the funniest parts of the election. I think David Duke or someone like that endorsed Trump, and the media went into a tizzy over whether or not Trump would "distance himself" from Duke or "condemn" him. Yet, we had this smiling Taliban-sympathizing guy, whose son had just killed roughly 50 LGBT folks, smiling and rooting for Hillary at one of her campaign rallies and it took her awhile to respond.

mikema63 says he knows people who were killed by Mateen--and Mateen killed 49-50 people in one incident--and yet still maintains he's more afraid of white Christians or rednecks. To me, that suggests a dedication to a political cause that is every bit as radical as some of the Muslims that run around calling for death to all infidels.
#14821284
blackjack21 wrote:mikema63 says he knows people who were killed by Mateen--and Mateen killed 49-50 people in one incident--and yet still maintains he's more afraid of white Christians or rednecks. To me, that suggests a dedication to a political cause that is every bit as radical as some of the Muslims that run around calling for death to all infidels.


@mikema63 Seriously is that true? WTF are you thinking? :eek:
#14821285
@blackjack21

Environment and education is key in how a person turns out. Tell me @blackjack21, if you were a Saudi monarch with a son, would you give your son the best education you can and let him see everything in the world around him thus risking that the son hate Saudi Arabia and wish to change through violent means or would keep him ignorant like everyone else. Or at least brainwash him enough so that when he does see the outside world, the only response he can give is radicalization.

Mohammed Atta is a special case. When Mohammed Atta was a child, he was not allowed to socialize with other children since his father wanted to keep his family private. Not only that but Mohammed Atta in particular spent most of his professional life either within or affiliated with, Islamic extremist organizations. These two things probably significantly influenced his entire being. You can pretty much psycho-analyze every single other decision he made using this information. You can even use only the first reason to show exactly why he decided to join Islamic extremist organizations in the first place, which is trying find a sense of belonging which you can see when he progressively became more religious, however, with political motivations, most particularly as sense of nationalism and anger US policy towards the Middle East.

Omar Mateen also had bad behavior at school when he was younger with a preoccupation with violence which continued throughout his life. This probably contributed the most towards his actions. He may have had a mental problem if this is the case, maybe had Sadistic Personality Disorder or something like that.

This is because you're more likely to be killed by far-right extremist than an immigrant Muslim in the US and far-right extremists make more kills annually than that of Muslims. Also if you mean that you should be more afraid of Mateen than white Christians or rednecks? Then yes, Mateen is a proven sociopath who is clearly unstable in any situation. But regular Muslims? That's proven wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-r-mi ... 21634.html

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-0 ... etting.jpg
#14821297
Oxymandias wrote:Environment and education is key in how a person turns out. Tell me @blackjack21, if you were a Saudi monarch with a son, would you give your son the best education you can and let him see everything in the world around him thus risking that the son hate Saudi Arabia and wish to change through violent means or would keep him ignorant like everyone else.

I would definitely educate him, but also remind him of his station in life. I would think an absolute monarch would understand the perils of that station in the modern world, and would need a son educated in how to deal with non-monarchs. The monarchy needs religion to justify its existence. That's true pretty much everywhere. Totalitarians always build a cult of personality. So I'd have my son prepared to launch a schism within Salafism to reject both violence and Western hedonism in order to head off more confrontation with the West.

Oxymandias wrote:Or at least brainwash him enough so that when he does see the outside world, the only response he can give is radicalization.

The monarchy isn't where radicalism stems from. They have to rule, so they have to be relatively pragmatic. Radicalism comes from the Salafists, and they really don't have to be pragmatic.

Oxymandias wrote:Omar Mateen also had bad behavior at school when he was younger with a preoccupation with violence which continued throughout his life. This probably contributed the most towards his actions. He may have had a mental problem if this is the case, maybe had Sadistic Personality Disorder or something like that.

Maybe that is the case, but that doesn't answer my last point in the previous post: namely, why is being homosexual or transgendered not a personality disorder but Sadism is? That's the other side of the alt sexual lifestyle. And masochism too. The Saudis like masochistic European women. They shower them with money and gifts. Maybe that's a topic for another thread. The Marquis de Sade and Freidrich von Sacher Masoch are still widely read, so it seems odd to me to say that a transgender doesn't have a mental disorder, but a Sadist does; then again, I guess it goes back to liberal embrace of hedonism and the pleasure principle.

Oxymandias wrote:This is because you're more likely to be killed by far-right extremist than an immigrant Muslim in the US and far-right extremists make more kills annually than that of Muslims. Also if you mean that you should be more afraid of Mateen than white Christians or rednecks? Then yes, Mateen is a proven sociopath who is clearly unstable in any situation. But regular Muslims? That's proven wrong.

I'd say the right in the United States is more bravado than bite. That kid in South Carolina that shot up the black church the most recent example that comes to mind of someone who actually acts. However, left wing violence is common. We saw plenty of it in the anti-Trump protesters, with evidence suggesting that they were paid to disrupt Trump rallies, get violent even with the women Trump supporters, and co-ordinate that action with a media narrative. How about Black Lives Matter? How many cops have been killed by their ideology getting propagandized, with visits to the White House and embraced by Hillary Clinton? Maybe the violence from the left stems from the Red Diaper Babies not being allowed to socialize with others too.
#14821326
@SolarCross @blackjack21

Yeah, and guess what? I have known and met even more people who've had to live on the streets and have known people who were abused by their families, and have known people who have died because their loving christian families hated gay people more than they loved their children.

Do you really think Christians haven't been killing gays for decades? You used to beat us in the streets and leave us for dead. You invented the term "fag drag" here in the south. So pardon me while you cry salty tears over the pulse shooting but conveniently forget everything God fearing Christians have ever done to us.
#14821342
@blackjack21

An educated monarch educated in the West would try to make is country more liberal. The monarch is rich, his son would already have many modern luxuries.

You need to brainwash your son in order to make so that instead of reacting to the modern world in a positive light, react to it in a negative light. The US already protects Saudi Arabia anyways and what Saudi Arabia does outside of the Middle East doesn't matter so the monarch can do and say whatever he wants. Diplomacy isn't necessary in Saudi Arabia.

I never said that monarchism was the source of radicalization. I said that you need to brainwash him enough with extremist Islamic propaganda that so when he sees the real world, he sees it in a radicalized view.

Yes. Making your son brainwashed is a pragmatic action. You are supposed to make sure that your son makes sure the status quo stays put in Saudi Arabia so that the Saudi family continues to rule. It doesn't matter whether or not you get an insane ruler or something. Continuation of rule is the number 1 important thing.

I don't really care about the rest of your post. It isn't relevant to me as I previously said. Also I don't think you understand what Sadistic Personality Disorder is and I recommend you read up on before you make the large assumption that everyone who is into S&M has Sadistic Personality Disorder. In fact you can go to many S&M forums and ask people who do S&M this question. Pretty much all of them will be at least slightly offended by your thought and then post lots and lots of links and explanations as to how SPD works.

Idk. Do you have any proof and sources that prove that what you're saying is true? If you think right-wing extremists are all bravado but no bite then why are refusing to acknowledge the links I gave. Either way I don't care. As long as you agree that Muslims are not in fact biggest threat to Western civilization I am fine.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

@blackjack21 , you replied; This is the issue[…]

Is a Marxist receiving financial backing through t[…]

Election 2020

And speaking of the story that Facebook and Twitt[…]

Being a philosophical-*materialist*, can I just p[…]